Showing posts with label antiplatelet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label antiplatelet. Show all posts

Pantoprazole Better Than Omeprazole for Clopidogrel-Treated Patients

Sunday, October 11, 2009

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Oct 02 - In patients with coronary stents for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, use of pantoprazole instead of omeprazole as a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) allows a better platelet response to clopidogrel, French researchers report.

In the September 22nd issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. Thomas Cuisset of CHU Timone, Marseille, and colleagues observe that omeprazole reportedly decreases clopidogrel's antiplatelet effect, perhaps in association with CYP2C19-related mechanisms involved in PPI metabolism.

To determine whether this was a class effect, the researchers randomized 104 patients after cardiac stent placement to treatment with 20 mg of pantoprazole or 20 mg of omeprazole daily, along with dual antiplatelet therapy with 75 mg of aspirin and 150 mg of clopidogrel.

At 1 month, response to clopidogrel, as assessed by platelet reactivity index vasoactive stimulated phosphoprotein, was significantly better with pantoprazole.

Furthermore, 44% of patients in the omeprazole group were nonresponders to clopidogrel, compared to 23% of patients in the pantoprazole group.

The investigators conclude that "the degree of the interaction between clopidogrel and PPI is not homogeneous within the class of PPIs and is less marked with pantoprazole than with omeprazole."

As Dr. Cuisset told Reuters Health, "For clopidogrel-treated patients requiring a PPI," the study findings suggest "the preferential use of pantoprazole compared to omeprazole to avoid any potential negative interaction with CYP2C19."

Reference

J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:1149-1153.

Read More .......

Bedtime Aspirin Lowers Ambulatory Blood Pressure

By Will Boggs, MD

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Aug 12 - Aspirin taken at bedtime reduces ambulatory blood pressure in patients with prehypertension, according to a report in the August issue of the American Journal of Hypertension.

"Bedtime ingestion of low-dose aspirin could provide a cost-effective approach for blood pressure control in subjects with prehypertension, thus delaying the actual development of hypertension and the need for costly pharmacologic treatment," Dr. Ramon C. Hermida from University of Vigo, Spain, told Reuters Health in an email.

Dr. Hermida and colleagues investigated the influence of aspirin on ambulatory blood pressure in patients who received aspirin at different times of the day according to their rest-activity cycle and who were evaluated by 48-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring before and after 3 months of pharmacologic intervention.

Blood pressure did not change after nonpharmacological intervention or after administration of aspirin upon awakening, the researchers note.

In contrast, the authors report, systolic blood pressure decreased by 6 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure decreased by 3 mm Hg in patients who took 100 mg aspirin at bedtime.

Nearly three quarters (71%) of the patients who took aspirin at bedtime experienced at least a 3 mm Hg reduction in 24-hour systolic blood pressure, but only 6% showed an increase in blood pressure after treatment.

Heart rate was unchanged in all treatment groups.

"Aspirin given at the end of the activity cycle, but not upon awakening, could thus target the nocturnal peak of plasma renin activity, while enhancing the nocturnal trough in the production of nitric oxide," the investigators suggest.

"Thus," they continue, "the enhanced reduction in plasma renin activity, beneficial impact on endothelial function and blocking of alpha- and beta-adrenergic receptors associated (with) bedtime administration of low-dose aspirin could explain the impact of this intervention on blood pressure here documented in subjects with high-normal blood pressure."

"We are currently developing a new multicenter prospective trial with awakening versus bedtime administration of low-dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in subjects with impaired fasting glucose or diabetes," Dr. Hermida explained. "The study will involve 3200 subjects who will be followed for over 5 years."

Reference

Am J Hypertens 2009;22:896-903.

Read More .......

Prasugrel also reduces cardiovascular events in patients who receive GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

by Michael O'Riordan

Boston, MA (updated) - An analysis of the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial has shown that prasugrel (Effient, Daiichi Sankyo/Eli Lilly) significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular events even in the setting of potent platelet inhibition with a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor [1]. Like the overall study, bleeding risks were higher with prasugrel, but the use of a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor did not heighten the relative risk of bleeding when compared with clopidogrel (Plavix, Sanofi-Aventis/Bristol-Myers Squibb).

Lead investigator Dr Michelle O'Donoghue (Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA) said the new analysis answers an important question because until now it was unknown whether there was any role for a more potent blockade of the platelet P2Y12 receptor, which prasugrel and clopidogrel both inhibit, in the setting of near-complete and rapid platelet inhibition with a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor.

"The results of the current study suggest that more potent platelet inhibition with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel significantly reduces the risk of death, MI, or stroke at 30 days by 22% to 24%, regardless of whether a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor is used," said O'Donoghue to heartwire. "Although prasugrel increased the risk of bleeding as compared with clopidogrel, the use of a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor did not accentuate the risk of bleeding with prasugrel as compared with clopidogrel."

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use not randomized

To heartwire, O'Donoghue said the current analysis was not designed to look at the question of whether there is any additional benefit for using GP IIb/IIIa inhibition in patients who are also treated with prasugrel. Since the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors was left to the discretion of the treating physician and not randomized, it is not possible to directly compare outcomes for patients who did or did not receive the drugs in the TRITON-TIMI 38 population, she said. Patients treated with GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors might differ markedly from the other patients, for instance, and might have a poor angiographic result, a complicated PCI, or other baseline medical conditions that placed them at higher risk.

"For this reason, it may be misleading to compare MI or bleeding rates in patients who did or did not receive a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor," according to O'Donoghue. "Patients treated with a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor in TRITON-TIMI 38 had a higher incidence of [major adverse cardiac events] MACE; however, this finding is confounded by differences in other characteristics."

Full results of the TRITON-TIMI 38 study have been previously reported by heartwire. Briefly, investigators randomized 13 608 individuals with an acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI to prasugrel or clopidogrel. Of these patients, 7414, or 54.5%, received a GP IIb/IIIa during their index hospitalization.

At 30 days, and similar to the overall findings, there was a significant benefit of prasugrel over clopidogrel in reducing the primary end point of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke in patients who received GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors and those who did not. Like the main trial, the reduction was driven primarily by a reduction in the risk of MI. Investigators also report reductions in stent thrombosis and urgent target vessel revascularization in patients who received and those who did not receive GP IIb/IIIa inhibition.

Efficacy outcomes at 30 days stratified by use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibition

Outcome
Hazard ratio (95% CI)
Cardiovascular death, MI, stroke (GP IIb/IIIa)
0.76 (0.64-0.90)
Cardiovascular death, MI, stroke (no GP IIb/IIIa)
0.78 (0.63-0.97)
Cardiovascular death (GP IIb/IIIa)
0.88 (0.57-1.35)
Cardiovascular death (no GP IIb/IIIa)
0.69 (0.41-1.16)
MI (GP IIb/IIIa)
0.75 (0.62-0.90)
MI (no GP IIb/IIIa)
0.74 (0.59-0.93)
Periprocedural MI (GP IIb/IIIa)
0.83 (0.67-1.01)
Periprocedural MI (no GP IIb/IIIa)
0.89 (0.69-1.16)
Stent thrombosis (GP IIb/IIIa)
0.46 (0.29-0.71)
Stent thrombosis (no GP IIb/IIIa)
0.34 (0.17-0.65)
Urgent target vessel revascularization (GP IIb/IIIa)
0.56 (0.38-0.82)
Urgent target vessel revascularization (no GP IIb/IIIa)
0.47 (0.26-0.84)

In the overall study, prasugrel significantly increased the risk of bleeding at 30 days compared with clopidogrel. In this analysis, investigators report that patients treated with a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor did have higher rates of bleeding than those who did not receive the drugs, but the excess risk with prasugrel was comparable in both patient groups.

Safety outcomes at 30 days stratified by use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibition

End point
Prasugrel (%)
Clopidogrel (%)
Hazard ratio (95% CI)
p for interaction
TIMI major or minor bleed (GP IIb/IIIa)
3.3
2.9
1.16 (0.89-1.50)
0.19
TIMI major or minor bleed (no GP IIb/IIIa)
1.7
1.1
1.63 (1.05-2.52)
—
TIMI major bleed (GP IIb/IIIa)
1.2
1.1
1.06 (0.69-1.64)
0.39
TIMI major bleed (no GP IIb/IIIa)
0.9
0.6
1.47 (0.81-2.66)
—

"The results of this study will be particularly relevant to cardiologists who may wish to use prasugrel in combination with a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor following PCI," said O'Donoghue.

Speaking with heartwire, Dr Paul Gurbel (Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD), who was not involved in the TRITON study, said that patients receiving GP IIb/IIIa inhibition in this study were not randomized, and it is possible that there were clinical differences that accounted for the benefit of prasugrel over clopidogrel.

"It might be that demographically the patients are balanced, but angiographically they differed," added Gurbel. "What determines a lot of periprocedural infarctions and early event rates has to do with the anatomy you're dealing with in the cath lab."

Gurbel said that he agreed with the authors' conclusions that bleeding isn't accentuated with prasugrel on board with a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor when compared with clopidogrel. Because the GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors are such potent antiplatelet agents, he said that he wouldn't expect bleeding to increase further with the addition of prasugrel, especially since events were assessed early, at 30 days. However, he said that it doesn't help him commit to prasugrel over clopidogrel, because patients will bleed more with the potent antiplatelet agent beyond 30 days.

Added benefit

To heartwire, O'Donoghue said the findings also provide some insight into platelet biology, especially since there appears to be added benefit of the more potent prasugrel in the setting of platelet-aggregation inhibition with a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor. This may suggest that the P2Y12 receptor has a variety of downstream effects that influence clinical outcomes and yet are independent from the IIb/IIIa receptor, she noted.

"These insights into platelet biology also lend proof of concept to the idea of targeting multiple platelet receptors," she continued. "It will be interesting to see the results of ongoing trials that are evaluating drugs that inhibit other platelet receptors. For instance, the TRA2P-TIMI 50 and TRACER trials are currently evaluating the additive benefit of blocking the platelet thrombin receptor on top of a background of aspirin and/or clopidogrel."

Dr Sanjay Kaul (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA), who was not part of the study, said the authors were cautious in their conclusions but, like Gurbel, was critical of the lack of randomization in the study. Kaul told heartwire that it is only possible to determine the added benefits of GP IIb/IIIa inhibition on top of a thienopyridine in a randomized trial. The ideal trial, he said, would be a 2x2 factorial design where patients were randomized to clopidogrel or prasugrel and then randomized to a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor or no GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor.

Various studies, among them ISAR-REACT, ISAR-REACT 2, and BRAVE-3, all studied the use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibition against the backdrop of clopidogrel pretreatment, and only ISAR-REACT 2, which studied high-risk ACS patients, showed a benefit, noted Kaul.

The Food and Drug Administration approved prasugrel for use during PCI on July 10, 2009. The drug debuted on the shelves of US pharmacies August 5, 2009.

Source
  1. O'Donoghue M, Antman EM, Braunwald E, et al. The efficacy and safety of prasugrel with and without a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54:678-85.
Read More .......

H2 antagonists an alternative to PPIs to prevent bleeds in aspirin users

Friday, July 17, 2009

by Lisa Nainggolan

Glasgow, UK-The histamine H2-receptor antagonist famotidine (Pepcid, Johnson & Johnson/Merck), is effective in the prevention of peptic ulcers and erosive esophagitis in patients taking low-dose aspirin, a new study, Famotidine for the Prevention of Peptic Ulcers and Esophagitis in Patients Taking Low-Dose Aspirin (FAMOUS), has found [1].

Although proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are known to be effective in the treatment and prevention of ulcers related to aspirin, there have been concerns about their costs, safety, and risk of interaction with clopidogrel, which is frequently prescribed concurrently with aspirin, note Dr Ali S Taha (University of Glasgow, Scotland) and colleagues in their paper in the July 11, 2009 issue of the Lancet. Given these issues, famotidine represents a useful therapeutic alternative to PPIs for patients taking aspirin chronically for vascular protection, they say.

Gastroenterologist Dr Chris Hawkey (University Hospital, Nottingham, UK), who has written an editorial accompanying this study [2], told heartwire that this issue is important because up to 30% of the population are taking low-dose aspirin, "and they are at quite a high risk of a gastric bleed." And although from these study results "famotidine seems a good alternative to a PPI, the one thing this trial doesn't establish is which of these strategies is the most effective in preventing ulcers," he says. "That information is quite urgently needed if people are going to consider H2 antagonists like famotidine."

Although it's counterintuitive . . . we now recommend in gastroenterology that people should continue aspirin if they have a gastric bleed.

With regard to PPIs and their purported interaction with clopidogrel, he believes this is not a class effect: "Pantoprazole doesn't seem to interact, whereas omeprazole and esomeprazole do." And, he says, "Although no one has done a trial, you can probably handle this by taking one drug [PPI] in the morning and the other [clopidogrel] in the evening. So it's not such a big issue, but it is a genuine issue." This subject has recently been covered extensively in an article by heartwire.

Hawkey also has some interesting advice for cardiologists regarding continuing aspirin use in patients who do have bleeding ulcers on aspirin. "Everybody's instinct is to stop the aspirin, but what we know is that if people do stop the aspirin, they have a higher death rate, because they lose the protection on the heart and develop heart attacks and strokes." So he says, "Although it's counterintuitive, and the bleeding is worse if they stay on aspirin, we now recommend in gastroenterology that people should continue aspirin if they have a gastric bleed. So that makes it all the more important to protect them in advance with whatever strategy you choose."

80% reduction in gastric ulcers, esophagitis, with famotidine

FAMOUS is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients from cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and diabetes clinics at a UK hospital. Subjects were taking aspirin 75 to 325 mg per day with or without other cardioprotective drugs and had no ulcers or erosive esophagitis on endoscopy at baseline. They were randomized to receive famotidine 20 mg twice daily (n=204) or placebo twice daily (n=200).

The primary end point was the development of new ulcers in the stomach or duodenum or erosive esophagitis on final endoscopic examination at 12 weeks.

At this time point, gastric ulcers had developed in seven (3.4%) of the patients taking famotidine compared with 30 (15%) of those taking placebo (odds ratio 0.20, p=0.0002); duodenal ulcers were found in one (0.5%) patient on famotidine compared with 17 (8.5%) on placebo (OR 0.05, p=0.0045); and erosive esophagitis had developed in nine (4.4%) famotidine recipients compared with 38 (19%) of those taking placebo (OR 0.20, p<0.0001).

There were fewer adverse events in the famotidine group than in the placebo group (nine vs 15); four patients in the placebo group were admitted to the hospital with upper-gastrointestinal hemorrhage. The other most common adverse event was angina (affecting two patients taking famotidine and four on placebo). The researchers say they found no evidence of an interaction between famotidine and clopidogrel.

"Famotidine might be a useful alternative for PPIs in patients taking low-dose aspirin," Taha and colleagues conclude.

Is eradication of H pylori the way to go?

Another issue Hawkey addresses in his editorial is whether the eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection would be sufficient to prevent ulcer bleeding in aspirin users. "Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs] cause ulcer bleeding by causing ulcers, no question about that," he said. "But aspirin may well cause bleeding, in at least some people, in ulcers that are formed for other reasons, such as H pylori."

"At the moment the evidence is mixed as to whether H pylori eradication is sufficient to protect people," he noted. But because people who have ulcer bleeds with coronary heart disease have more than a 10% mortality, it is imperative to establish whether or not H pylori eradication is effective, he says: "It's the key thing. If it has a bit of an effect but there is still risk, then it's no use as a strategy."

Hawkey himself is about to start a trial in 9000 patients to see whether eradicating H pylori infection before they begin aspirin therapy produces a clinically meaningful reduction in ulcer bleeds. In the meantime, "it's better to go with the belt-and-braces approach that we know," he concludes.

Sources

  1. Taha AS, McCloskey C, Prasad R, et al. Famotidine for the prevention of peptic ulcers and oesophagitis in patients taking low-dose aspirin (FAMOUS): a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2009; 374:119-125.
  2. Hawkey CJ. NSAIDS and aspirin: notorious or FAMOUS? Lancet 2009; 374:93-94.
Read More .......

Prasugrel approved for use during PCI, FDA announces

by Steve Stiles

Rockville, MD - The US FDA has granted the market go-ahead to prasugrel (Effient, Lilly/Daiichi Sankyo), an antiplatelet agent in the same chemical class as clopidogrel (Plavix, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi-Aventis), during PCI in the setting of ACS, the agency has announced in a press release [1]. The FDA review of prasugrel's application took about 18 months.

The approval is based primarily on the strength of the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial, which compared prasugrel against clopidogrel in 13 608 patients with moderate- to high-risk unstable angina, ST-segment-elevation MI (STEMI), or non-ST-segment-elevation MI (NSTEMI). Prasugrel was given as a 60-mg loading dose followed by 10-mg/day maintenance, and clopidogrel was given as a 300-mg loading dose plus 75-mg/day maintenance for six to 15 months.

In their announcement of the approval [2], Daiichi Sankyo and Lilly say the drug should be given at the dosage used in the trial. "In addition, for those patients who weigh less than 132 pounds (60 kg), physicians should consider lowering the maintenance dose to 5 mg once daily. Patients taking Effient should also take 75 mg to 325 mg aspirin orally once daily, according to their doctors' instructions."

As reported by heartwire when the TRITON-TIMI 38 was presented at the AHA 2007 Scientific Sessions, patients who received prasugrel showed a significant 19% reduction in the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke in the entire ACS population. The benefit was about the same across the three kinds of ACS.

The FDA's Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee unanimously recommended the drug's approval in February 2009, as reported at the time by heartwire. During the hearing, most panel members said they felt comfortable supporting a superiority claim for prasugrel over clopidogrel in ACS patients, despite an increased risk of clinically significant bleeding observed with the newer drug in TRITON-TIMI 38.

According to the FDA announcement, prasugrel's labeling will include "a boxed warning alerting physicians that the drug can cause significant, sometimes fatal, bleeding. The drug should not be used in patients with active pathological bleeding, a history of ministrokes (transient ischemic attacks) or stroke, or urgent need for surgery, including coronary artery bypass graft surgery."

"Effient offers physicians an alternative treatment for preventing dangerous blood clots from forming and causing a heart attack or stroke during or after an angioplasty procedure," said Dr John Jenkins, director of the Office of New Drugs, in the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in the agency's announcement. "Physicians must carefully weigh the potential benefits and risks of Effient as they decide which patients should receive the drug."

Sources

  1. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves Effient to reduce the risk of heart attack in angioplasty patients [press release]. July 10, 2009. Available here.
  2. Daiichi Sankyo and Lilly. Daiichi Sankyo and Lilly receive US FDA approval for Effient [press release]. July 10, 2009. Available here.

Read More .......

Reducing bleeding risk in patients who need triple antithrombotic therapy

Friday, July 10, 2009

The review, published in the July 7, 2009, issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, was written by a group led by Dr David Holmes (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN).

They explain that dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin plus clopidogrel [Plavix, Sanofi-Aventis/Bristol-Myers Squibb]) is given routinely in the treatment of ACS and after coronary stent deployment, and anticoagulant therapy might be indicated for stroke prevention in a variety of conditions that include atrial fibrillation and profound left ventricular dysfunction as well as after mechanical prosthetic heart valve replacement. Triple antithrombotic therapy may be needed when a patient has multiple diseases, the most common situations being patients with AF and or mechanical prosthetic heart valves who also have coronary artery disease and require a stent.

Coauthor Dr Dean Kereiakes (Christ Hospital, Cincinnati, OH) commented to heartwire: "This is a growing problem in the context of the aging population. Both atrial fibrillation and the need for prosthetic heart valves rise with age, and so does the risk of falling, which further increases bleeding risk. ACS is very common, and given the increasingly widespread use of drug-eluting stents (for which dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended for at least one year), the significant bleeding hazards associated with triple antithrombotic therapy is a real issue, which will become worse in the future."

The authors note that before committing a patient to triple therapy for an indefinite period, the physician should carefully consider alternative approaches. For example, in patients who require long-term oral anticoagulation who are undergoing stenting, serious consideration should be given to the use of bare-metal stents, for which dual antiplatelet treatment is recommended for a shorter time. And for AF patients, thought should be given to left atrial appendage occlusion devices or pulmonary vein ablation that could avoid the need for long-term warfarin.

Kereiakes added that for patients needing a heart valve, the new On-X valve (On-X Life Technologies, Austin, TX) should be considered; it has lower warfarin requirements than other valves. "New valve technology such as this will help immensely to reduce levels of anticoagulation needed," he said.

Balancing the need for treatment with bleeding risk

Holmes et al say that patients who are treated with triple therapy present significant clinical challenges because of the imperative to balance bleeding risks against the risk of stopping one of the therapies. They point out that there is very limited published information regarding use of triple antithrombotic therapy, so concrete recommendations are difficult.

Data that are available suggest that up to 21% of patients receiving triple antithrombotic therapy need a transfusion (a figure that might increase with longer treatment durations), and the relative risk of major bleeding is three- to fivefold higher than in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy alone. But this is confounded by the fact that patients receiving triple therapy are typically older and have multiple comorbidities, which might increase bleeding potential. Short-term use of triple therapy (for one month) is associated with at least a twofold lower risk of major bleeding compared with prolonged use (more than six months). But patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy only after PCI (prolonged warfarin interruption) have a threefold increase in stroke or thromboembolic events, compared with patients receiving triple therapy or warfarin plus a single antiplatelet agent.

Keep aspirin dose and INR low

Holmes et al advise that for patients receiving triple therapy, the dose of aspirin should be kept as low as possible (75 to 81 mg), clopidogrel should be given at its standard dose of 75 mg/day, and warfarin should be administered under tight control to achieve a slightly lower target international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0 to 2.5. They also suggest that proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) should be considered as prophylaxis against gastric bleeds.

The issue of using PPIs with clopidogrel has been fraught with controversy as it is thought that there may be an interaction between these agents. But Kereiakes commented to heartwire: "The latest consensus of experts is that there is no good evidence events are increased when PPIs are given with clopidogrel. The studies suggesting increased events are confounded. I do give PPIs as prophylaxis to patients on triple antithrombotic therapy, but I tend to use pantoprazole and esomeprazole, which have the least incriminating data regarding an interaction with clopidogrel."

PCI in patients taking warfarin

In patients on warfarin who need PCI, the authors suggest that it may be better to choose a bare-metal stent and commit the patient to a short course of clopidogrel, rather than to an extended course of triple therapy. They suggest that bare-metal stents should be considered for use in target vessels less likely to benefit from drug-eluting stents (eg, vessels >3 mm in diameter, short lesions <15 mm, and de novo stenoses). They note that clopidogrel regimens as short as two to four weeks have been reported to offer adequate protection from early stent thrombosis with bare-metal stents, but current guidelines recommend approximately three to six months of triple therapy, after which patients may continue on aspirin and warfarin alone.

One alternative they mention is to use a drug-eluting stent for very high-risk lesions and accept the increased risk of bleeding. For patients with high bleeding risk treated with a drug-eluting stent, they advise that triple therapy may be limited to three to six months, with warfarin plus clopidogrel and a prophylactic PPI continued thereafter.

How to cope with bleeding

The authors note that bleeding on triple therapy is a particularly difficult problem. Severe or life-threatening bleeding usually requires reversal of warfarin therapy and, in some cases, platelet transfusions to counteract clopidogrel therapy. If dual antiplatelet therapy requires urgent discontinuation, the patient should be closely monitored for the risk of stent thrombosis. In patients with mild or moderate bleeding, every effort should be made to maintain the INR as close to 2.0 as possible, and the aspirin dose should be kept at <100 mg.

If bleeding persists, they advise that aspirin be discontinued first, as clopidogrel seems to be more important than aspirin in preventing stent thrombosis after PCI.

New drugs and stent designs

Holmes et al point out that all these uncertainties will be further compounded by the imminent arrival on the market of new anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs and new stent designs. The factor Xa antagonists rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Johnson & Johnson) and apixaban (Bristol-Myers Squibb), which might replace warfarin, also dramatically increase bleeding risk when combined with aspirin plus clopidogrel and so may not much help patients requiring triple therapy. The new antiplatelet drug prasugrel (Lilly/Daiichi Sankyo) is more potent than clopidogrel and associated with higher bleeding rates and so is not likely to be suitable for use in combination with warfarin, but the AstraZeneca compound AZD 6140 is shorter acting and reversible, which might be advantageous when used in patients who also require warfarin, they note.

The new protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist SCH 530348 (Schering-Plough) has shown promising results in preliminary trials, with no increase in bleeding yet seen, and the authors suggest that if this drug becomes clinically available, it may replace clopidogrel in patients who require warfarin, giving a modified triple combination that might have an improved safety profile.

Finally, the cyclooxygenase inhibitor triflusal (Uriach Pharma) is potentially associated with lower bleeding risk and has been demonstrated as safe and effective in combination with warfarin in patients with AF and so could prove useful in patients requiring oral anticoagulation and undergoing PCI, but randomized studies are needed, they add.

In addition, new stents are being introduced with thinner struts and polymer coatings, which are thought to be associated with better endothelialization and less vascular inflammation than previous drug-eluting stents. And another new generation of stents that employ bioabsorbable polymers or are designed to capture circulating endothelial precursor cells to promote vascular healing are in development, and the hope is that these stents could be less subject to late thrombosis and might require shorter durations of dual antiplatelet therapy.

Read More .......

New meta-analysis updates benefits of antithrombotics in AF

by Sue Hughes

San Antonio, TX - For patients with atrial fibrillation, taking adjusted-dose warfarin reduces the risk of stroke by approximately 60%, and antiplatelet agents reduce the risk by about 20%, a new meta-analysis estimates.

The authors conclude: "These results reaffirm recommendations for adjusted-dose warfarin for patients with atrial fibrillation who are deemed to be at high risk for stroke, with antiplatelet therapy for low-risk patients and for those who cannot safely receive warfarin." But they add that a substantial unmet need remains for antithrombotic agents that are more efficacious than aspirin and that are safer or more easily administered than adjusted-dose warfarin.

The meta-analysis, published in the June 19, 2007, issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine, was conducted by a team led by Dr Robert Hart (University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio). They note that nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is an important cause of disabling stroke, the incidence of which can be reduced by using antithrombotic prophylaxis. They previously conducted a meta-analysis of 16 randomized clinical trials testing antithrombotic therapies for stroke prevention in approximately 10 000 participants. But since publication of that meta-analysis, another 13 randomized trials in 18 140 additional patients have been reported. They therefore conducted a new meta-analysis of all currently available randomized trials.

They included 29 trials with a total of 28 044 participants (mean age 71 years; mean follow-up 1.5 years). Results showed that adjusted-dose warfarin is the most effective antithrombotic therapy at preventing stroke, being around 40% more efficacious than antiplatelet therapy.

Main results of meta-analysis of antithrombotic therapy in AF patients

Comparison
Trials (n)
Patients (n)
Reduction in stroke (%)
95% CI (%)
Warfarin vs control
6
2900
64
49-74
Antiplatelet agents vs control
8
4876
22
6-35
Warfarin vs antiplatelet agents
12
12 963
39
22-52

Other randomized comparisons were inconclusive. Absolute increases in major extracranial hemorrhage were small (less than 0.3% per year) and were less than the absolute reductions in stroke.

Hart et al note that they have confirmed the main findings of their previous meta-analysis but have improved the precision of the estimates of benefits and risks, because of the addition of 13 trials and the more than doubling of the total number of participants and strokes. "Major new evidence includes comparisons of adjusted-dose warfarin with the combination of clopidogrel plus aspirin (one trial with 6706 participants) and a more precise estimate of anticoagulation therapy compared with all antiplatelet therapies (six additional trials with 8911 participants)."

What is the best INR?

They note that the substantial relative risk reduction in stroke with adjusted-dose warfarin is consistent for all patient subgroups over a wide range of absolute stroke risks. Achieved INRs in randomized trials ranged from 2.0 to 2.9, and while direct randomized comparisons of different intensities of adjusted-dose warfarin are limited, the authors say that achieved INRs between 2.0 and 2.5 offer large relative risk reductions for primary stroke prevention and that the absolute increase in intracerebral hemorrhage during anticoagulation therapy remains relatively small if the INR is 3.5 or less.

They point out that the estimate of a 20% reduction in stroke with antiplatelet agents is less consistent among trials than the estimate for adjusted-dose warfarin, and another recent analysis suggested a larger estimate of the efficacy of aspirin, with a 35% risk reduction, but that aspirin seems to have a larger effect on nondisabling, noncardioembolic strokes than on cardioembolic infarctions.

Any role for clopidogrel?

Hart et al further report that the relative benefit of any specific antiplatelet agent or combinations of antiplatelet agents is unclear from the available data and that there is no evidence favoring any one dosage of aspirin over another. They add that the point estimate of the relative risk reduction with adjusted-dose warfarin was similar when compared with clopidogrel plus aspirin and with pooled results from eight trials of aspirin alone, suggesting that there is no major benefit of adding clopidogrel to aspirin, but these antiplatelet agents are being directly compared in the ongoing ACTIVE-A trial.

They further report that the two available randomized trials that added antiplatelet therapy to full-dose anticoagulant therapy were too small and had too few events to adequately characterize the efficacy and safety of such therapy.

Hart et al say the finding of only small increases in major extracranial hemorrhage during anticoagulation is reassuring, but the design of recent randomized trials may result in more favorable estimates of bleeding than those that can be anticipated in clinical practice for warfarin-naive patients and for older patients. However, they add that recent, large, practice- and population-based studies report reassuringly similar results.

But warfarin not best for everyone

The authors conclude by pointing out that the impressive relative risk reduction in stroke with adjusted-dose warfarin does not imply clinically important benefits for all patients who have atrial fibrillation. Noting that the intrinsic risk for stroke among such patients varies 20-fold, they advise that many low-risk patients do not benefit substantially from warfarin, whereas high-risk patients (particularly those with previous stroke or transient ischemic attack) have large absolute reductions in stroke rate with anticoagulation therapy.

They add that the choice of antithrombotic prophylaxis is best individualized and should consider the patient's inherent stroke risk and the best estimate of the absolute benefits, as well as bleeding risk, access to high-quality anticoagulation monitoring, and patient preferences.

Read More .......